70 Percent
That’s the number of people who either think that waterboarding the Underoos Bomber is okay or are not sure if it’s okay. From Rasmussen:
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.
7 out of 10. I think this qualifies as a supermajority, and it means one of two things:
- The American public is so debased they are willing to acquiesce to a regime that tortures on a regular basis;
- Waterboarding, despite all the bleating to the contrary, isn’t torture.
Needless to say, Andrew Sullivan thinks the first answer is correct. And, needless to say, I disagree strongly. Torture is an act that shocks the conscience in a universal way. You hear of the action being perpetrated and think “My god, why would anyone condone such behavior.” I guarantee you that if Rasmussen had asked “Do you support cutting off the Underoos Bomber’s fingers one at a time until he gave up information on his fellow terrorists” or “Do you support gouging out the eyes of the Underoos Bomber until he squeals” the responses would have 90-10 against. You know why?
Because those actions are unequivocally torture. They are not analogous to pretending to drown a war criminal for a couple of seconds. I’m sorry, but they aren’t. Waterboarding doesn’t shock the conscience in the same way.
Now, I’m not saying that we should waterboard the Underoos Bomber. I think we should do it as infrequently as we possibly can: I don’t think it’s torture, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s pleasant. That being said, I’d rather leave it on the table and keep the option open than have him — again, a war criminal and a foreign national — lawyer up when faced with questions from law enforcement officials looking to foil future attacks.